The need for individual package price labels for products sold in supermarkets is currently a significant issue. Almost all products sold today are factory labeled with a uniquely identifying UPC (Universal Product Code) bar code. When scanned at a supermarket checkout station this initiates an automated retrieval of price from an in-store computer database. Industry spokespersons claim that this form of checkout system virtually eliminates the need, and the associated labor costs, for additional price labeling of individual packages, the cost savings resulting in lower prices to the consumer. Furthermore, they claim, the consumer is still provided adequate pricing information in the form of a label on the shelf where the product is displayed.
On the other hand, consumer advocate groups claim that eliminating individual price labeling is unfair to the consumer because the price stored in the checkout counter computer database may be higher than that listed on the shelf label. Studies have found that discrepancies between the shelf labels and the price stored in the checkout counter computer database are frequent. A price label on the package has been the only previous practical means by which shoppers can verify that they are being charged the price they expect at the checkout station.
Even if products are labeled individually, discrepancies may still exist between prices in the checkout counter computer database and on individual pricing labels. This is especially true for competitive, high-voltage supermarkets where prices change weekly, or more frequently, in response to product availability and promotional sales. The time required to update shelf and individual price labels is clearly much greater than that required for the simple keyboard entries needed to update the computer database. In the interim, price discrepancies will still exist.
If an individual product pricing method were to display to the shopper the price currently in the checkout counter database, there would be no discrepancies. In addition, if this method could provide shopper readable individual product pricing information without requiring physically affixing price labels, it would provide industry its desired labor cost savings without depriving shoppers of their desired pricing information.
When bar code scanners were first introduced, some supermarkets provided bar code scanner aisles for customers to use by themselves, before going through the actual checkout counter. Portions of a transcript from "A Joint Public Hearing Into The New York State Item Pricing Law", discusses this practice and the problems associated with it. In this hearing, the president of Price Chopper Supermarkets, Neil Golub, testified that "[Providing a sample scanning device for customer use only] was done for years. Remember, scanning has been around for many years now and when we first opened scanning stores, the way to interchange with your customers was to provide a scanning unit so that they could try the items and develop a credibility with the system." However, this system did not provide the customer with access to the store database while the shopper was comparing individual items during shopping. The shopper would still have to remember what the shelf price was until he or she walked over and gained access to a test scanning unit. The disadvantage from the establishment point of view was that if the shopper decided not to purchase the product after seeing the price, the shopper would often not return the product to its proper place in the store shelves. Heretofore, apparatus and method for providing a shopper immediate and direct access to a store database of product information while shopping has been unrealized.
Some patents teach bar code readers for business applications. U.S. Pat. No. 5,023,438, given to Watatsuki et al. entitled "A portable data input apparatus with different display modes" which teaches a pen type bar code reader that can invert the display message on the display device in response to an appropriate detection signal. Wakatsuki also teaches the implementation of a small transmitter/receiver exchanging messages with a data processing device. U.S. Pat. No. 5,012,642, given to Chadima et al, entitled "Instant portable bar code reader" teaches a bar code reader system that provides a hand held bar code reader attached to a power unit and a processing unit that can be constructed to be portable. U.S. Pat. No. 4,766,299, given to Tierney et al, entitled "Hand-mounted bar code reader" teaches a bar code reader that fits on a user's hand and allows the user to use that finger and all others of that hand for other purposes such as using a cash register. U.S. Pat. No. 4,818,847, given to Hara et al, entitled "Apparatus for optically reading printed information" teaches a new embodiment for a bar code reader. U.S. Pat. No. 4,983,818, given to Knowles, entitled "Data acquisition system with laser scanner module" teaches that a light scanner device might include a removable data terminal wherein the data terminal can be downloaded with new information and instructions from a host computer. U.S. Pat. No. 5,019,694, given to Collins, entitled "Overhead scanning terminal" teaches an overhead bar code scanning terminal for use at a checkout counter in a retail store. U.S. Pat. No. 3,978,318, given to Romeo et al, entitled "Hand-operated scanner" teaches a bar code reader that fits on a user's finger and allows the user to use that finger and all others of that hand for other purposes such as using a cash register.
Each of the patent publications listed above, fail to teach apparatus, method or use for a bar code reader, data manipulation and display capability, that insures current, accurate product information systems for use by shoppers. Heretofore, a simple and attractive solution to the individual pricing problem for both industry and consumer has not been developed.